On 11/10/20 5:28 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 03:43:31PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 11:34:27PM -0700, Allison Henderson wrote:
+/*
+ * Remove the attribute specified in @args.
+ *
+ * This function may return -EAGAIN to signal that the transaction needs to be
+ * rolled. Callers should continue calling this function until they receive a
+ * return value other than -EAGAIN.
+ */
+int
+xfs_attr_remove_iter(
+ struct xfs_delattr_context *dac)
+{
+ struct xfs_da_args *args = dac->da_args;
+ struct xfs_inode *dp = args->dp;
+
+ if (dac->dela_state == XFS_DAS_RM_SHRINK)
+ goto node;
Might as well just make this part of the if statement dispatch:
if (dac->dela_state == XFS_DAS_RM_SHRINK)
return xfs_attr_node_removename_iter(dac);
else if (!xfs_inode_hasattr(dp))
return -ENOATTR;
if (!xfs_inode_hasattr(dp)) {
- error = -ENOATTR;
+ return -ENOATTR;
} else if (dp->i_afp->if_format == XFS_DINODE_FMT_LOCAL) {
ASSERT(dp->i_afp->if_flags & XFS_IFINLINE);
- error = xfs_attr_shortform_remove(args);
+ return xfs_attr_shortform_remove(args);
} else if (xfs_bmap_one_block(dp, XFS_ATTR_FORK)) {
- error = xfs_attr_leaf_removename(args);
- } else {
- error = xfs_attr_node_removename(args);
+ return xfs_attr_leaf_removename(args);
}
-
- return error;
+node:
+ return xfs_attr_node_removename_iter(dac);
Just a nitpick on this anti-pattern: else is not necessary
when the branch returns.
if (!xfs_inode_hasattr(dp))
return -ENOATTR;
if (dac->dela_state == XFS_DAS_RM_SHRINK)
return xfs_attr_node_removename_iter(dac);
if (dp->i_afp->if_format == XFS_DINODE_FMT_LOCAL) {
ASSERT(dp->i_afp->if_flags & XFS_IFINLINE);
return xfs_attr_shortform_remove(args);
}
if (xfs_bmap_one_block(dp, XFS_ATTR_FORK))
return xfs_attr_leaf_removename(args);
return xfs_attr_node_removename_iter(dac);
-Dave.
Sure, I think its ok to clean out the elses sense they all return. Thanks!
Allison
